King Lear, a tragic play written by Shakespeare, takes the audience on a journey through the development of the protagonist from his glory days as a King to a powerless man thrown out into the streets by his own two daughters. What can this drastic change be attributed to? The play sparks many questions as to why Lear experienced such a turn of events and what Shakespeare is trying to reveal to his audience. When we look deeper into the play, it is evident that Lear’s tragic flaw, blindness, goes hand in hand with the disintegration of the natural social hierarchy which causes his strange fall from grace.

      The beginning of the play, I.i., provides evidence as to the why. Why did Lear, the most powerful man in England, become homeless? Being a character that is showered with endless praise and love by his subjects and daughters, Lear did not expect in the least that his own blood would deceive him. In I.i. the overconfident King Lear demands that his three daughters, Goneril, Regan, and Cordelia, profess their love to him in a “love test” so that he may how to split his land between them. His two eldest daughters, Goneril and Regan, speak with the loving words they know their father wants to hear. Goneril claims, “Sir, I love you more than word can wield the matter,” (I.i.60-61) in an effort to ensure that she receives a large portion of her father’s land. His oblivion is particularly evident when he banishes Cordelia, the only daughter that was truthful and refused to lie to her father simply to receive his wealth. She stated, “Unhappy that I am, I cannot heave my heart into my mouth” (I.i. 100-101). Subsequently, she was banished by Lear for not responding in the same manner as her sisters did. As we progress past this scene, it is clear that the King was wrong in choosing to believe Goneril and Regan, as he soon finds himself stripped of his power and left by them to die in a storm in Act III. Thereby, Shakespeare illustrates that valuing appearance over reality, a recurring theme in King Lear, is one reason for Lear’s downfall. Lear sees everything as only what it appears to be, not what it truly is. He is not used to second guessing himself or having people lie to him, causing him to be blind to the ulterior motives of his two eldest daughters and to banish Cordelia. His blindness veils the truth, allowing him to become entangled in lies. Lear’s blindness, fed by his arrogance, leads him down the road to losing not only his kingdom, and his family, but also himself.

        It is not solely Lear’s inability to see reality that causes the events in the play to unfold, but also Lear’s opposition to the social constructs of 8th century England.  In Shakespearean times, many strange events or mishaps were thought to be directly related to an imbalance in the natural hierarchy. It was believed that if everyone and everything knows it’s place and duties, the status quo will be maintained and society will be able to live in harmony. However, when the hierarchy is disturbed, disorder follows suit (Doncaster).  Lear shook the social construct through by giving away his power and dividing it between his two daughters. This conferral of his rights and power as King strictly opposes the Divine Rights of Kings. His rightful position, by the laws of nature, was not supposed to be abandoned. In addition, after Lear gives his crown to his two daughters, he is still referred to as King and continues to carry out a King’s duties by banishing Kent in I.i. Lear said to Kent, “That thou hast sought to make us break our vows-which we durst never yet-and with stained pride/ To come betwixt our sentence and our power/ Which nor our nature nor our place can bear/ Our potency made good, take thy reward” (I.i. 191-194). Not only does he use powers that he no longer has in order to banish Kent, but he also explains that it goes against his place and nature to divide his land. Ironically, he does just what he says he shouldn’t do. As a result of his dismissal of his position on the social hierarchy, Lear finds himself stripped of his wealth. In addition to his fatal flaw of blindness, Lear makes the mistake of opposing what is meant to be.

        Why have such an honorable and well-liked man face such terrible consequences? As readers advance through the tragedy, it is fair to question why Lear’s life evolved in the way that it did. By examining the ending of the play, one can see that Shakespeare meant to show the negative side of having domineering power in a society. Once Lear’s high social status and power are taken away, he transforms from an arrogant and naïve King into a kind father. The man who once banished his daughter for creating treason against him, now openly seeks her love. The cruelty he experiences at the hands of Regan and Goneril provides the force that enables him to open his eyes and see how power can cause greed. It was his own two daughters’ ambitious attitudes and need for status, that allow them to completely turn their backs on their father. Regan stated, “O sir, you are old. Nature in you stands on the very verge/ Of his confine. You should be ruled and led/ By some discretion that discerns your state/ Better than you yourself. Therefore I pray you/ That to our sister you do make return. Say you have wronged her” (II.iv.165-171). Having Regan say this to her father shows that she has lost respect for him due to his old age and lack of power. It is here, in Act II, that Shakespeare most clearly presents the familial turn of events between Lear and his daughters. This act offers the most obvious examples of how prosperity can tear a family apart and determine one’s fate. Although Lear’s blindness leaves him beaten down by his own family, his ignorance and disregard for nature also prove to be positive forces in turning his life around. If he had not given his power away and had seen Goneril and Regan’s mischievous plans from the start, he would have remained overconfident and too proud of himself. His overzealous attitude would have kept him from seeing the good in Cordelia. Unlike in most cases, and against the claims which Aristotle made in The Poetics, Lear’s flaws actually helped him to become a better person. He was able to see the other side of life, something which he had never seen before as King. Through the events in Lear’s life, Shakespeare may be trying to reveal a moral of this tragic play: one’s flaws mustn’t always be harmful, but can also be used to uncover the good in oneself.

Works Cited

1 – Doncaster, Sarah. “Nature and Animal Imagery in Shakespeare’s King Lear.” Nature and Animal

Imagery in Shakespeare’s King Lear. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2014.

2- Shakespeare, William, Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. The Tragedy of King Lear. New

York: Washington Square, 1993. Print.

       King Lear is incredibly tragic on many levels, but one of its most interesting and perplexing tragedies involved the fates of two brothers, Edward and Edgar. Shakespeare purposely puts them at odds; Edgar being the beloved son of Gloucester because of his birth in wedlock, while Edmund is his outcasted son, left with nothing because his mother birthed him outside of marriage. In fact throughout the play, Shakespeare constantly contrasts the two characters and their growth in the unjust world he has created for these characters, each showing new characteristics of themselves as they move to the tragic ending. He is relentless in deepening Edmund’s sense of evil and mercilessness, and as a contrast, shows Edgar consecutively becoming weaker throughout the play (although we as readers know for sure he is not mad). Yet, at the end, it is Edgar who has been given everything from birth who triumphs, and Edmund, who is left to give up the fight to prove himself better than the status he has been branded with. Shakespeare is truly trying to make a point about society, that is, in an unjust world, oppression is what causes humans to become monsters, destroys them of their potential, and in the end, leaves them with no hope until death.

       Before we can even begin to discuss Edgar and Edmund’s role in outlining society’s oppression of people and how that oppression affects them, we must begin with establishing the injustices that have already been created. in other words, without proving the world Shakespeare creates is a mirror image of society’s injustices, we cannot argue Edmund and Edgar serve a more specific purpose within this play. First, injustice establishes itself when Cordelia is rejected by Lear despite her sincere filial love for him. The injustice is further deepened when Lear chooses to accept his deceitful daughters, Goneril and Reagan, who do not truly love him. The second example of injustice in this play is Edmund’s betrayal of his family. When he first lies to Edgar and Gloucester is the beginning of his lies, but the pinnacle of his betrayal is becoming allies with Goneril and Cornwall, which is the ultimate sign of betrayal to his filial families, and his duty in society to serve those with higher status than himself. Shakespeare, in creating all these injustices within the play, is purposely setting up an unjust world. He uses the realm of King Lear to mirror the injustices of our reality, in which insincere and evil people seem to succeed instead of kindred souls like Cordelia or Edgar. Some might argue against this theory, stating that since all the main antagonists die in the battle scene in Act 5. However, one must not forget that in Act 5, Cordelia, Lear, and Gloucester who are the “innocent” characters in this play, also die along with the most evil. We are left with a single conclusion: although evil people cannot forever succeed, the world is so unjust that the innocents cannot come out of such an unjust world unscathed. Such is the realm Shakespeare sets up to unravel the larger story of our society: where the evil or injustice begins from in itself.

Now that the realm of King Lear has been established to mirror our reality, we must begin to delve into the differences of our two contrasting characters, Edmund and Edgar. From the beginning, the two brothers are set at odds. As Gloucester, their father, says himself: “His [Edmund’s] breeding, sir, hath been at my charge… I have so blushed to acknowledge it… But I have a son, sir, by older of law, who yet is no dearer in my account” (Act 1. Sc.1). Although it is a simple sentence, it already gives us input as to how Gloucester thinks of his sons. Although he loves them both equally, he is embarrassed to acknowledge the existence of Edmund because of society’s stigma towards the circumstances of his birth. Edgar, however, is only given a sentence worth of notice, which shows that his status as a legitimate child speaks for himself. Shakespeare does not separate them in any other way in the beginning of the play: in other words, the true difference lies in the circumstances of their birth, circumstances which neither brother could wield control over. The resentment in Edmund’s heart in being deprived of his father’s love and can be seen in Act 1, Sc 2: “Wherefore should I stand in plague of custom, and permit the curiosity of nations to deprive me… Why “bastard”?… when my dimensions are as well compact, my mind as generous and my shape as true, as honest madam’s issue?… Edmund the base shall top the legitimate. Now, gods, stand up for bastards!” Here, Edmund fully delves into the truth of his character: he resents his standing in society, and finds it unjust. He himself states that although he is equivalent to his brother in intelligence and looks, their upbringing and future will be vastly different because of circumstances he had no control over. This truth of this situation angers him, and causes him to see society as his enemy. In other words, had he not been discriminated against for his birth, it is very possible he would have not fallen into the cycle of tragedy Shakespeare establishes in this realm. However, his situation places him in a state of oppression, in which case he is denied inheritance, respect, and opportunities which otherwise would have been available to him, and that fact, that if one circumstance would have been different his entire life would be drastically different, is what angers him, creates hatred inside of him, and propels his transformation into a monster. What Edmund is looking for is not wealth of power. Unlike Goneril and Reagan, whose evil stems from their own greed and envy, Edmund’s evil or hamartia stems from his circumstances. If we generalize this theory even further, we can say that the society of the realm of King Lear constructed Edmund to be malicious and evil in the first place.

        Now we must talk about Edgar, whose importance is minor to the play, but plays a role as a plot device to propel Shakespeare’s critique on oppression and discrimination. Edgar, who is the legitimate child, is also the kinder less malevolent of the two. Edmund says himself that he is a “brother noble. Whose nature is so far from doing harms that he suspects none, on whose foolish honesty my practices ride easy” (Act 1. Sc 2). Having established the circumstances that create Edmund to be the vicious and merciless character that he is, we can deduce from the same reasoning that since Edgar has not faced these discriminarions, hardships, or lack of opportunties, we can see how he can be so perfectly honest and kind. Unlike Edmund, at least at the start of the play his sanity remains intact. Here, Shakespeare has made his first point: those who are treated fairly and justly, will come out as kind and just, in other words, not depriving people of fulfilling their potential as fellow beings in society will make them more productive within the society. However, as we know, Edgar slowly loses his sanity throughout the play, as slowly, everything he has been given from birth is stolen from him. First, Edmund steals Gloucester’s love for him from Edgar, by lying to him forcing him to flee from the only home we can assume he has ever known. Second, Edmund steals Edgar’s status as a person of influence and power when he allies with Regan and Cornwall. Having realized his brother, who of lower status and whom he thought as a lower family member, has betrayed and stripped him of all he has been given, Edgar proceeds to go mad, disguising himself as a beggar to escape the death sentence his own father has condemned him to. His last line in his aside is the clearest in defining his state: “Edgar, I nothing am” (Act 2. Sc. 3). This line is the pinnacle of his downfall. Edgar accepts without the privilege of his birthright protecting him, he has nothing to his name.

At this point, Edmund is able to become a more powerful entity than Edgar has ever has, as we see that later in the play, Regan and Goneril begin to fight over him, although Goneril is still married. This is what Edmund has dreamed of as seen in Act 5. Sc.1: “To both these sisters I have sworn my love, each jealous of the other… which of them shall I take?” It is clear that Edmund loves neither, as he strategically weighs the options of choosing one woman over the other, and then dismisses the issue as the battle dawns upon him. Edmund’s desperation for power, as we have established, derives from his need for love and acceptance, which has caused him to bring about the downfall of his brother and the mutilation of his father. His hatred for those who have denied him that love has already manifested, which means he must now find a replacement for those figures who should have given him affection in his life. The replacements are none other than Goneril and Regan. Shakespeare uses this moment to re humanize Edmund. Although we cannot forget all of the tragedy and death he has and will cause, we remember his need to be loved, and his circumstances which have constructed him to be this person in order to fulfil his potential in society which otherwise would have been deprived of him.

       And yet, at the end of the play, it is Edmund who falls and Edgar who triumphs in this unjust and cruel realm of King Lear. Edgar, having shed his mask of madness, appears as the champion to Albany, who defeats Edmund, putting an end to his madness. It is only in his last moments that Edmund repents, but only after Edgar utters these words: “I am no less in blood than thou art, Edmund, if more, the more th’ hast wronged me” (Act 5.3). Edmund relents his evil ways only after he has reached his ultimate goal, which was to be recognized by his society, but more importantly his family. We can conclude from this that as much as he hated Edgar, the hate stemmed jealousy of what he had and what Edmund himself could never have. Having been understood by the person he envied the most puts him at peace in his last moments, because at last, someone has understood why he did everything he did, although Edgar in no way says these acts are morally justified. As he dies, he learns that “Yet Edmund was beloved.The one the other poisoned for my sake, and after slew herself” (5.3.285–290). Learning that he was loved is what causes him to inform Edgar and Albany of the whereabouts of Lear and Cordelia, although it was too late.

          So what can we learn from this final conclusion of the tragedy of Edmund? Shakespeare shows us that within in unjust world, evil does cannot just come from itself, but can also be constructed by society. In this case, Edmund was a victim of his circumstances, and became merciless and cruel as a pathological need to have options and be loved. Likewise, we can see Edgar’s newfound knowledge that his brother was in no way lesser than him, and likely because of his own experiences in having been rejected by society, he can now understand his brother and the reasoning behind his choices. In the end, Shakespeare is asking his audience to not just to understand the circumstances that create degenerates and monsters formed of hatred in society, but begs them to plow towards social equality in society, just as Edgar did when he accepted his brother as a person equal to him in every way, tossing aside the previous prejudices that society built within him.

    Edmund, Gloucester’s bastard son, chooses to become a villain in Shakespeare’s tragedy, King Lear. Edmund is treated like a second-class citizen from the very beginning of the play because he was born out of wedlock. Edmund demonstrates his evil character throughout the play but it becomes evident in Act 1 Scene 2 when his plot is developed against his family. Edmund is a predictable villain, born into the wrong circumstances, so he decides to revolt and destroy what made him evil. In the process of getting his revenge he enhances his power.

    Shakespeare demonstrates Edmund’s villainous nature throughout the play. Nearly everything awful that happens in King Lear happens as a consequence of Edmund’s actions. Edmund warns his legitimate brother Edgar of the conspiracy against him.  Just after Edgar flees, Edmund then tells Gloucester that Edgar is the traitor. Edmund even injures himself in the process, to provide evidence against Edgar. Edmund is also manipulative and evil when he warns the Duke of Cornwall about an invasion his father has disclosed to him in confidence. In another episode of villainy later on in the play, Edmund promises that he loves both Goneril and Regan and plays them off against each other.  They both become jealous and this ends up hurting them both at the end of the play.   When he is in charge, he orders the execution of King Lear and Cordelia. He tries to redeem himself by saving Lear and Cordelia, but is only able to save Lear. His redemption begins when he says, “Some good I mean to do, Despite of mine own nature. Quickly send (Be brief in’t) to the castle; for my writ Is on the life of Lear and on Cordelia”(V.3.291-294). This “good” that he does makes him hope that he is slightly forgiven and is seen in a better light while he is dying.  Edmund can and should be held accountable for nearly all cruel actions in the play.

    What makes people feel like Edmund is evil is his desire for power no matter what the cost. He is the definition of the phrase, “the ends justify the means.”  Through lying and deceit, Edmund fools both Edgar and Gloucester, turning a father against his loving son.  Edmund, being the bastard son, is not naturally in line to inherit his father’s riches.  But his ambition for power and a desire to be legitimized leads him to create rifts between Edgar and Gloucester so that he can move into Edgar’s role with all of the status that comes with it.  Edmund demonstrates his intent when he says referring to his brother Edgar, “That he suspects none; on whose foolish honesty My practices ride easy! I see the business. Let me, if not by birth, have lands by wit; All with me’s meet that I can fashion fit” (I.2.189-192). In his exacting revenge for being labeled and treated as the bastard, he is the epitome of calculating and cold as well as capable in his villainous role.   In the end, Edmund obtains the throne, due to his lack of regard for his actions to get there.

    One possible issue for Edmund is whether it would have been better for him to become a benign passive character, or to follow his path as a villain amassing power. If Edmund was going to be the hero of the play, he would have had to put all of his resentments behind him. His character would risk becoming completely irrelevant. Instead, he becomes the villain and makes a name for himself. He cannot be blamed for choosing the non-politically correct route. Evil people don’t see themselves as evil. Dictators throughout history such as Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were seen by the world as the ultimate villains, but they often thought of themselves as doing the right thing. Their tactics were brutal and horrific against their enemies and in pursuit of their power but frequently tempered by benevolence bestowed on a select group.  But, in fact, even their benevolence, like Edmund’s, is positioned to support a position of power.  At the end of the play, when Edmund seeks to save Cordelia and Lear, he seems to be identifying with that part of his nature that is remorseful and benevolent. Still in charge, his benevolence is an act of power, but he no longer needs the villainy. Because he is killed by his brother Edgar, we question if Edmund followed the best route for amassing power. Had he been benign and more passive character, Edmund would have lived much longer, but he likely never would have accumulated any power or made a name for himself.

    Edmund needed to raise his status and under the social structure of his time, being a bastard of Gloucester condemned him to a lower position than his brother or father.  Edmund manipulated his world and achieved power at the expense of others, including those closest to him.  Edgar, his privileged brother, and Gloucester, his verbally abusive father, deserved what they got.  But Edmund may have needed to redeem himself and thus we think that it was required of him to be evil in his quest for greatness.

Works Cited:

“Adolf Hitler.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2014.

“Benito Mussolini.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2014.

“Francisco Franco.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2014.

Shakespeare, William, Paul Werstine, and Barbara A. Mowat. King Lear. N.p.: Folger Shakespeare Library, 2005. Print. Folger’s Edition.

William Shakespeare’s play, King Lear, opens with a family that appears to be in disarray. A father demands to be told the love that his daughters have for him. In return, he is granted with two hyperbolic, and clearly false replies. Although most would be dissatisfied with someone of the same bloodline indulging in blatant dishonesty, Lear celebrates the fictitiously expressed love by gifting these two daughters shares of his kingdom. In return for the honest, albeit less impressive, response of his youngest daughter, Lear disowns her, consequently condemning the truth. It is this opening that sets the mood of the play– that deceit and ambiguity is the greatest power one may possess.

The play opens with Kent’s line, “I thought the King had more affected the Duke of Albany that Cornwall.” [Shakespeare 1.1 1-2]. It is interesting that Shakespeare chose to begin the play in this manner. It seems as if this were simply a casual conversation between two minor characters, and Shakespeare is well known for alluding to the plot of his work in just the opening lines. In Macbeth for example, we are introduced to the three chanting witches, who insinuate one of Macbeth’s major struggles in just the opening scene. With this in mind, it becomes clear that when Kent and Gloucester are having a casual conversation about which of the King’s two son in laws her prefers more, their discussion holds great importance in regards to the tone of the play. If two men, who were not a part of Lear’s family could easily discuss which family member Lear was more favorable of, then modesty and respect of family was not held in high esteem.

Act I continues with the introduction of Edmund: “this knave came something saucily to the world before he was sent for, yet his mother was fair, the sport was good at his making, and the whoreson must be acknowledged.” [Shakespeare 1.1 21-24]. From these few lines, the listener is given a brief history of Edmund’s coming forth into the world– that he was born out of wedlock, and thus considered illegitimate. The language used by his father is disrespectful, to say the least, as Edmund’s own father compares him to the likes of a servant who has come before they have been beckoned for.This immediate disregard shown towards his eldest son, and the superficial reasoning that Gloucester provides to defends his actions only increases Edmund’s status as illegitimate, spurring the hostility between him and his brother. It is also evident, through the introduction that he has granted his son, that Gloucester is primarily concerned with his own status and reputation, rather than those of his children, who were the ultimate consequences of his actions.

In this first Act, we are given what essentially is the beginning of the end for the many characters involved. When Lear turns to his youngest daughter Cordelia, after being thoroughly satisfied with the exaggerated confessions of love by his two older daughters, he states, “To thee and thine hereditary ever Remain this ample third of our fair kingdom, no less in space, validity, and pleasure Than that conferred on Goneril.– Now, our joy, although our last and our least, to whose young love The vines of France and milk of Burgundy Strive to be interested, what can you say to draw a third more opulent than your sisters’? Speak.” [Shakespeare 1.1 88-95]. In his speech, Lear acknowledges that Cordelia, as the youngest, may traditionally have less to offer than her sisters. However, Lear also encourages Cordelia to speak and to earn a share of land more rich and lavish than the thirds that her sisters were granted. This is contradictory to the general nature of the time, which enforced gender and age as guidelines to which a social status is determined. For an unwed, young female such as Cordelia, it seems odd that Lear would even suggest that she would have the capacity to earn a share of the kingdom that contained more wealth than her sisters’ shares. From these actions, we can infer that perhaps Cordelia was the more favored daughter of Lear, and when she responded to his speech with, “Nothing, my lord”, that it was the disappointment that caused her banishment. [Shakespeare 1.1 96].

In the first Act alone, the audience is given many points in which the common role of family during the Middle Ages were challenged. At this time, Fathers were not allowed to legally break the bones of their children, but it seems that in the banishment of a daughter, and the exile of those who support her would lead to ultimate physical, if not just psychological, damage. It is also strange, as Cordelia notes to Lear,” Why have my sisters have husbands if they love you all? Haply, when I should wed, that lord whose hand must take my plight shall carry half my love with him , half my care and duty. Sure I shall never marry like my sisters, to love my father all.” [Shakespeare 1.1 109-115]. In the case that both Goneril and Regan declared that all of their love is directed towards their father, it is strange, especially for this time, that there is no reaction from either of their husbands, as they were legally under the control of the Dukes of Albany and Cornwall.

The relationships between family members in King Lear, become increasingly odd as the traditional family values of this time period is investigated. In a time when children and women were viewed as property, it is both refreshing and unnerving to see the interactions between Lear’s three daughters. Surprising, that Cordelia would speak so boldly against her father who clearly favored her, and surprising still that the husbands of Lear’s two older daughters had no opposition to their drawn out statements about their love for their father. It is clear, that in this family, that relationships between characters exist for more than natural reasons, and those who are together only stay that way to increase their political power.

Works Cited

“The Element of Social Tragedy in King Lear -.” World Socialist Website. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Jan. 2014.

“THE MEDIEVAL FAMILY.” Campbell, n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2014.

Schwen, Mark R. “King Lear Beyond Reason:Love and Justice in the Family.” Oxford University Press, n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2014.

Maclean, Norman. “Episode, Scene, Speech, and Word.” Norman Maclean, King Lear Essay. University of Chicago, n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2014.

Edmund opens up his famous soliloquy in King Lear with the words “Thou, nature, art my goddess. To thy law my services are bound. Wherefore should I stand in the plague of custom…?” (I.iii.1-3). Edmund calls to “nature,” under the laws of which he would be equal with his older brother and he condemns “custom,” under the laws of which he is a bastard with no inheritance. Ironically, however, the very next action which Edmund takes in an effort to overcome this “plague of custom” goes against the very “nature” which he has just stated would make him equal to his legitimate brother. Immediately after this soliloquy in I.ii., Edmund cunningly turns his father against his legitimate brother Edgar. This results not in a restoration of natural equality between the two brothers, but in another unbalance of their filial bonds. What Edmund does not realize is that nature does not support the socially constructed hierarchy in which he seeks to achieve equal status with his brother. Wealth is not natural and neither is status, therefore one can achieve neither while also remaining in accordance with nature and equality. Where there is competition to be wealthy, there will always be inequality. Where there is inequality, natural relationships cannot thrive. Instead, the social constructs of status and wealth give way to the trickery and betrayal with which Edmund found he could elevate himself socially.

    Edmund was not born a trickster nor a backstabber. It is his frustration with being treated as lesser than Edgar that leads him to resort to cruelty. In this soliloquy, we experience Edmunds thought process, one which clearly begins in a mood which is more confused than angry. We glimpse Edmund as one who feels saddened, hurt, and even weak due to his unfair treatment thus far in life. He examines himself and his situation, first thinking it unfair that his brother being “twelve or fourteen moonshines” older should mean he is any more worthy of his father’s property and power. In nature, those who are older do enjoy some degree of superiority due to greater maturity, but not to the degree at which Edgar enjoys it. Next, Edmund asks himself “why ‘bastard’?” (I.ii.5-7). He considers the fact that he is just as strong as his brother both physically and mentally, and it is only at this point that Edmund grows angry. It seems that this is the first time he has truly allowed himself to examine the validity of the reasons for which he is considered by his father and by society to be lesser than his brother. Edmund realizes that if status were determined by natural fitness and maturity, he and his brother would be equals. He thereafter holds on to this concept that in a world governed by nature he would not be labeled a bastard, and his brother would be no better than him.

    As Edmund goes over all the titles by which he has been referred to, he slowly begins to go mad. He repeats the words base, baseness, bastard, and bastardy multiple times within the first half of his soliloquy, quickly becoming more angry. Soon he turns this anger on to his brother, almost blaming Edgar’s existence for his misfortune. He throws away all thoughts of equality, deciding that he is in fact better than his brother Edgar. Edmund assumes that his brother was probably conceived in a “tired bed” between a boring married couple, whereas he himself was conceived “in the lusty stealth of nature” (I.ii.13-15). Edmund’s perception of what would be his natural status becomes more and more skewed as he adds his lusty conception to the list of reasons why, inherently, he should be considered better than his brother. At this point, Edmund has completely lost track of his original idea of what is natural. In my opinion, nature goes no further than to say that two brothers should both be treated equally as sons. Only briefly does Edmund glimpse this truth, allowing us to sympathize with him, before jealousy motivates him to turn nature into justification for complacency and revenge. As is characteristic of people of status during the Elizabethan and Jacobean ages in which Shakespeare lived, Edmund goes on to use nature “in order to legitimize…social order” (Doncaster 1), in a way which will be favorable to him.

    After establishing in his mind that he is better than his brother, Edmund contemptuously states, “well then, legitimate Edgar, I must have your land” (I.ii.18). This is the point at which Edmund makes it his mission not to share, but to steal, his brother’s inheritance. Just as, a paragraph ago, Edmund became obsessed with the titles base and bastard, he now becomes obsessed with the word “legitimate.”  He begins to use it jokingly in reference to Edgar, as if saying directly to him, “let’s see how legitimate you feel once our dad reads this letter I forged.” By the end of his soliloquy, Edmund can already see the light. He has almost no doubt that his “invention,” the letter full of lies about Edgar’s desire to bring down their father, will be successful. Already, Edmund feels confident enough to say, “I grow, I prosper” (I.ii.23), and that he will, for quite some time at least.

    Ultimately, Edmund’s actions lead to his downfall, because, although he convinces himself that they were in accordance with nature, they were not. By ruining the bond between his father and brother, he himself manages to escape being the son who feels unfairly mistreated, but leaves his brother Edgar to assume this role. He ignores the fact that, just as being in this role had motivated him to rise up and better his situation, it would motivate his brother to do the same. For a few moments, Edmund’ self-reflection had allowed him the realization that in a fair world governed by nature, he and his brother would be equals as sons of their father and equal in their inheritance of his belongings. However, this proves to be only a short-term enlightenment.

Humans skewed the laws of nature and weakened the strength of filial relationships by creating the concept of choosing a single heir. Although Edmund knows what it feels like not to be this heir, he still quickly allows his interpretation of what is natural to support his desire for revenge. By I.ii., Edmund manages to completely change roles with his brother, making himself the single heir and Edgar the outcast. By accomplishing this he does no service to the natural balance, he simply upsets it further. Therefore, it is only logical that his sudden power is short-lived. Edmund’s development throughout his first soliloquy as well as his actions thereafter prove that humanity cannot maintain natural balance while attempting to function under a socially constructed hierarchy. This will always result in a desire for more which can overpower even the bond between brothers, inspiring unhealthy competition and awakening cruelty as it did in Edmund. Nature will always run its course and restore equality, even if it means that the people who have been upsetting filial balance, in this case Edmund and Gloucester, must become equally dead.

Works Cited

  1.  Doncaster, Sarah. Representations of Nature in King Lear. Shakespeare Online. 20 Aug. 2000. (18 Jan. 2014.)<http://www.shakespeare-online.com/essays/learandnature.html >.

2. Shakespeare, William, Barbara A. Mowat, and Paul Werstine. The Tragedy of King Lear. New York: Washington Square, 1993. Print.